Re: Elizabeth Warren’s health care plan.
She won’t answer questions about raising taxes on the middle class, so obviously taxes will be increased. The trade-off, according to her, is that health care costs in our budget will go down more than the taxes will go up.
That may be true in general. I don’t know because I have not done the math.
But my question is this. How does this affect me? I still have income, but I also have Medicare already. So if I understand her correctly, my personal taxes will go up, but I will get absolute zero in return. In essence, I will now have to start paying for something that I already have, which was earned with a lifetime of labor.
Other working people who use Medicare for their health coverage seem to be in the same boat, and a lot of seniors still work.
Is that right, or does her plan include a tax exemption for the working elderly?
I am glad we could answer your question, Uncle Scoopy.
I think people are missing the upside of the most costly Dem healthcare plans. Which is that they will only come into existence if Bernie or Liz is elected (together with a compliant Congress). In that case, the small amount of additional tax required to provide “Medicare to All [Others]” would hardly be noticed after the tax hikes required to relieve all college grads of their student loan liabilities and the billions in new taxes required to adequately compensate for slavery and centuries of oppression. In for a dollar, in for trillions of dollars is the essence of the Dems’ plans.
Interesting. Thanks mostly to Trump and the Republican Congress from 2017-2018 there already are trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see.
It certainly is the case with deficits that high, that large new spending programs will be difficult to sustain, on the other hand, it certainly is also the case that Democrats have shown more concern over deficits in practice than Republicans have, and that, therefore, the concern over increased taxation doesn’t really make sense.
If $1 trillion annual deficits aren’t large enough to be a concern, then would it necessarily be the case that a $2 trillion annual deficit is a concern. Why need there be any increase in taxes to relieve students of their loan liabilities or to compensate for slavery? Just add all that spending to the debt. Republicans have clearly shown they don’t actually care about a $20 trillion debt. If it were a couple trillion higher to pay for these things (just guessing on that amount) could it actually make a difference?
I’m Canadian and I lived in Japan and Health care in Canada is free but very slow. (it’s partly because we don’t have enough doctors per capita).
Honestly I prefer the health care in Japan where it’s a public insurance, that you pay monthly based on your revenue but then any health care is paid at 70% by the government. I go to the clinic and it costs me $20 inculding medication. I only waited about 20 minutes to see the doctor too.
Dental health is also included (which is not here in Canada) which is awesome.
Here are some info on the Japanese system, since no one talks about it:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_system_in_Japan
Simple question, complicated answer. As a medical professional, that side of the equation is hardly addressed when the politicians start espousing their propaganda. This is where the real cost comes from.
First, a few personal observations. I have yet to see the government be fiscally responsible with other people’s money. I have yet to see them (Congress) uniformly enforce any laws that they create.
Canada and other countries, pay to educate their doctors which are then indebted to the country to work for them at a salary that is set by the government. All cost for any medical services supplied by the government are also set by the government. This is how they keep the cost low. You are able to buy up insurance in Canada if you wish to have more choices and specialist care.
When an individual comes to the hospital that is uninsured, they are actually given better care than people who are insured. By law in my state they are given all tests that are available to make sure that they are in good health before they are discharged. If on the other hand you are insured, your care is dictated by what your insurance will pay for. Imagine what Medicare will not pay for to keep costs down.
So whatever the government has their fingers in, they will always increase taxes in order to pay for the poor management of a program that they have no idea how to manage.
That’s not an argument against single-payer but against the US government.
Scoop,
To answer your question as plainly as i can for you. You personally would get screwed under Elizabeth Warren’s plan.
There is a old saying that applies to anyone that believes “Democratic Socialism” is any different than regular Socialism. “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” It applies in all aspects of life. There will be consequences to anything the Socialists of the Democratic party attempt to give away for free.
Plus i also believe that much of those promises are pandering to a gullible group of young voters just to get themselves into office
No one is saying give away for free, no one is saying there’s a free lunch. It’s just that the market is failing so spectacularly at health care that it’s past time to try something else. Doctoring is not just another widget where rational consumers can make informed choices.
It has devolved into an extortionate maze where prices are not revealed upfront and drugs are horribly overpriced.
As to your scare-mongering – Socialism, eek!! – we have socialized roads, policing, firefighting, mail delivery…socialized medicine isn’t going to sneak into your house and rifle through your sock-drawer or whatever.
Gullible would be continuing the medical 3-card Monte because that’s the way it’s always been and we fear change.
“Socialism, eek!! – we have socialized roads, policing, firefighting, mail delivery”
Sorry to inform you, but that’s all a result of a Democratic Republic.
Don’t be sorry. We are a democratic republic. Getting everyone adequate healthcare won’t change that.
Justin: What’s your source? The SS part sounds like complete bullshit.
I think odds are that no one is putting out a lot of specifics on Medicare for All because they know that even under ideal circumstances, it almost certainly won’t be completely implemented during the next president’s term. There’s just no way to shift that much inertia in less than a decade. Moving all the insurance companies and employees out of the sector, building out the massive extra bureaucracy, updating all the relevant laws, etc. is a lot, and rushing it would make a lot of unpopular trouble.
Pointing out the downsides of a plan you support that is basically impossible to deliver the benefits on while you’re in office seems like a bad strategy.
Likely what they would actually do is Obamacare 2.0, with a public option, as it should have had all along. That could set up a universal Medicare program for the future, but not try to cover the whole population with a new program in one go.
Politically, I think they’re staking out a position that, while they do believe in it, will allow them to end up compromising on something that is still good.
If we assume Medicare for All will happen, then in any case I think it’s very unlikely that there will be tax hikes on seniors’ wages. Quite possibly corporate taxes go up, though, so it’s theoretically possible you could face some kind of a hike.
Looking at the US from countries that all have universal health care that has much lower overall costs and excellent outcomes, we can’t understand why Americans can’t grasp the concept.
To directly answer your question, I don’t think she has said. It’s an interesting point I haven’t seen anyone mention.
One natural option would be to use a payroll tax rather than an income tax. Employers already pay significant healthcare premiums for their employees, so the theory is that wages would stay about the same and employers would just redirect the money from insurers to the government. That should alleviate concerns for seniors too—if your income is from a pension, or investments, or something else besides a wage, a payroll tax wouldn’t affect you.
An income tax with a high floor would also mostly miss seniors, or at least only cover seniors with enough income that nobody would be crying for them.
I also think it’s natural, but a bit unfair, to parse generations like that. A 70 year old had a higher wage during their premium earning years because healthcare costs were much lower (relative to inflation), so employers could pay more in wages and less in insurance premiums. And employees (or self employed people) could pay much less in their own contributions. That is, in some sense, unfair to people in their prime earning years now—but that’s just the luck of the draw!
If paid through payroll taxes, it would affect me doubly, since I am both the majority shareholder and an employee, so I am paying both the employer’s share and the employee’s.
I have always argued that the bulk of health care should be paid for by massive taxes on the commodities that increase medical bills – cigarettes, alcohol, sugary foods, other junk food. That way, the people who will need the most medical care will be paying the most for it. If I remember right, that is exactly how they do it in Norway.
This is actually a brilliant idea that would make too much sense for the people in Washington. The Lobbyist would never allow it. At the same time I don’t want to see an end to private insurance because i feel that those that work hard for their insurance benefits shouldn’t have to suffer for those that are not willing to earn for themselves.
Cigarettes already are subject to a large amount of taxes, as they should be.
There have been attempts to pass taxes on sugary food before and they get attacked as both ‘nanny state solutions’ and ‘taxes on kids.’
Also, the last time it came up, the sugar and junk food industries had paid for scientists to publish false studies that claimed that sugar wasn’t the real cause of health problems, but that fat was. I know these studies weren’t conducted under oath, but deliberately lying to the public should be some sort of crime. Another possibility is that right now a business license if renewed as a formality, it’s basically a money raising exercise by states. Obviously this can’t be done arbitrarily, but businesses that violate rules could have their business license simply not renewed. UBC law professor Joel Bakan, who was behind the documentary The Corporation has written on this.
I’m not sure which companies were behind paying for these fake studies, but let’s say Coca-Cola was. So, the Coca Cola business license is not renewed and the company is simply no longer a going concern. I can’t help what would happen to the employees, but it’s also not my fault they worked for a corrupt company. Of course, the demand for the products of Coca Cola would still exist, so the employees could find work with non corrupt (or less corrupt) companies.
This effected me personally because I ate more sugary food than I should have because I believed those studies.
I’ve been on Medicare for about 2 years now. I’m only 51, but qualify because I’m on disability. Long story short, I got in an argument with a garbage truck. I wanted to stay stopped at a red light, it wanted me to go through and the truck won. Every time I hear a Democrat talk about “Medicare for All” my first reaction is: No don’t do that to everyone! Honestly, it’s the worse insurance I’ve ever had. Maybe I’d feel different if I was healthier. Then again, it may just because of the Medicare Advantage plan I subscribed to last year.
From a political point of view, the problem is that most people are satisfied with their health insurance. Telling them all they will have to switch to Medicare is going to make a lot of voters very unhappy. That wouldn’t bother me so much if I didn’t want Trump to lose. The argument against the public option when the ACA was being debated was that a government option would crowd private insurance out of the market. But that would be better than single payer. The problem with single payer is the lack of competition. Under the current system, even though I am frustrated with my insurance plan, I know that there is competition, both among Medicare Advantage plans and between healthcare providers.
The thing is, even if the Democrats retake the Senate and abolish the filibuster via the nuclear option, I can’t see there being enough Democratic senators to pass Warren’s plan. Then again I couldn’t see Trump being elected either.
Well, your healthcare costs are virtually zero until they aren’t. Medicare for all ensures that if you get in a car crash or you go to your Dr. and he says Hey, you’ve got leukemia – you only have to worry about your health, not going bankrupt too.
You miss the point. I already have all that coverage for free with Medicare. As I understand it, I will get absolutely nothing additional with Medicare for all, and cannot possibly get anything, but my taxes will go up. (Probably WAY up).
In other words, I now have Medicare for free (based on a lifetime of labor), and now I will have Medicare and have to pay for it (through taxes).
Is that correct, or is there a tax exemption for the working elderly?
Most “Medicare for All” plans would be better than the current Medicare system. The problem is that Warren states she supports “Medicare for All” but there are 3 or 4 variations floating around using the same moniker for minor tweaks to major overhauls.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/feb/19/explaining-medicare-all/
IF you assume she is talking about the original idea that Sanders backed years ago, you will find your coverage simplified and expanded, and the bulk of the cost covered by tax increases on the wealthiest brackets. I’m not sure of your income level, but my guess is that your tax increase will be marginal to none.
That’s very different. If it costs me almost nothing extra, eliminates all my out-of-pocket, and adds dental care, then I have nothing to complain about. I will have to study Warren’s plan in more detail. Without having looked at it, I thought it was just literally an expansion of Medicare to everyone.
I will also have to see how she plans to get the money. I’ve read of costs of some three trillion per year, which is $10,000 for every man, woman and child in America. That’s a massive number. The current cost of Medicare for people 65 and older is $612 billion, and that covers 49.2 million people. It’s not unreasonable to say that we could need $3 trillion just to expand that coverage to everyone. The bill gets even larger if you cover more than is currently covered by Medicare. Bernie wants to cover everyone with no co-pays or deductibles, plus adding 100% coverage of dental and vision! The total bill could easily run over $3.5 trillion per year, which would mean it would cost more than all the current revenues of the Federal government added together!
Amazing how those other countries manage it! Where’s that American “can do” spirit?
Yeah, sorry I missed that last night. Guess I should choose between a) drink or b) type. I’m not the guy you’re looking for who has read Warren’s plan in detail, but I believe Bernie’s plan is funded by a rise in taxes for the 0.1% and a tax on stock transactions.
Also, the price tag will likely be less because the government is currently prohibited from bargaining down drug prices (thanks, Sonny Bush!), that would change. And the whole in/out of network con and hospitals charging $60 for a Bandaid could be eliminated.
Selfish. You’re contributing to a common good which sometimes requires sacrifice on your part.
Yeah, not gonna happen at my age, especially when my monthly cash flow is already negative. The sacrifices need to be made by people who have too much to begin with. They can give up a yacht, but I can’t give up dental care or winter heat.
I have to say the Democrats lost my vote on this one issue unless there is an tax exemption for the working elderly, who have already paid for their Medicare. In fact, if they want my vote on universal health care, they’d have to finance as much as possible the fair way – with massive sales taxes on the commodities that cause people to strain the health care system in the first place – sugary foods, other junk food, soft drinks, cigarettes, tobacco, firearms, other weapons, alcohol, excessive internet usage. Of course, that will depress the sale or use of those things – which is actually another benefit.
I’d also support an obesity tax if they can find a way to administer it.
You realize that Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan were going to abolish Medicare and SS if they retained the House in 2018, and have everyone on Medicare go onto private insurance plans.
So you either have a Democratic plan, or the non-Republican plan, which is to find your own insurance when they abolish Medicare, which at your age, would cost a fortune.
Also, one of your premises is incorrect. What you paid into the system is dwarfed by the expenses paid on your behalf, because of rampant health care inflation.
So vote accordingly.
You are generalizing with no knowledge of my specific situation.
While your point may be true in general, the total amount I have received from Medicare so far is five dollars – the amount picked up on one discount prescription. In addition to all the money I paid in over fifty years of work, I am still paying a small amount (about $1200 per year) for a Medicare Advantage plan, although I can’t really complain about that because it pretty much pays for itself by including a paid gym membership.
Of course, health insurance of any kind never pays for itself when you stay healthy. Over the course of my entire lifetime, I’ve only gotten back about $2000 from health insurers. That has a big luck component. It could have gone the other way if I had experienced a catastrophic accident or illness, but my family and I pretty much never went over my deductible, so insurance rarely kicked in. (Thankfully, my employers picked up most of the costs.)
I did, however, get back more than I put in on dental insurance, so that kinda balanced the ledger. (My childhood dentist pretty much botched everything he ever did.)
I’ve always been utterly baffled by the Amerikan views on healthcare.
“Why should I chip in to the pot to pay for healthcare other people use?”
It’s the literal point of society! Individuals work together for the benefit of all.
Do any of you have the slightest clue just how many people contribute to your daily lives? How many people work to produce, prepare and deliver your food? Who keep your electricity on? Handle all your waste? Provide you with the level of comfort you take for granted?
You literally depend personally on thousands and nationally on millions of your fellow human beings just to stay alive.
And lots of those essential people providing essential services are paid for through taxes. You don’t have to personally send the farmer $5 a week, and the sewage plant worker $2, you as a society all chip in to a central pot, and it gets taken care of for you.
Whether you use a specific tax-funded service or not, you give a bit of money towards it so the society as a whole benefits.
But when it comes to making sure all those people who help keep you alive are able to stay alive and healthy themselves, you all throw your hands in the air and denounce it as some evil conspiricy.
“Why should I chip in to the pot to pay for healthcare other people use?”
Because you personally benefit from those other people, directly or indirectly.
Because it’s how a civilised society works.
And, quiet simply, because it’s the right thing to do!
The fact that a rich, civilised nation who constantly proclaim themselves “the greatest nation on Earth” can’t grasp this just baffles me!
This is the nature of the economics debate in politics. Liberals argue that society and an economy works better in the long run when everybody can participate, and conservatives argue on behalf of ‘laissez faire.’
ideally, the debate, as it is in many countries, would be more along the lines of ‘at what point is too much spending going to collective programs’ and not the binary of U.S politics. Prior to the election of Reagan, it was more like that (not that major problems hadn’t developed in other areas of the economy) but the Republican Party has since gone off the deep end.
How many illegal immigrants do you have in your country? We have upwards of 22 million in the U.S. I paid a penalty the past 5 years for the right to NOT have health insurance, totaling just less than $5,000 in fees. Yet, we are giving free insurance to Mexicans, Hondurans, Guatemalans, etc in return for democrat votes.
Since it’s the right thing to do, how about you chip in towards my health care, even though I’m not a citizen of your country?
Fake News.
Taxes will go up, fees paid to insurance companies will disappear under single payer system for, at least, basic medical coverage. I don’t know if Elizabeth Warren’s plan allows for or would have a need for supplemental medical insurance.
I can’t understand the logic of a person who pays, say, $200 a month at present for medical coverage of a private insurer, but would pay, say, $1,200 a year ($100 a month) under single payer being concerned their taxes would go up.
I’m certainly aware that is the Republican frame: anything paid to government is evil taxes, anything paid to private companies is wonderful free enterprise, never mind that you might actually pay more, and I thought it was shameful of Joe Biden to engage in a genuine cheap shot against single payer playing up this idiotic Republican frame.
That aside, however, Bernie Sanders is also promising a whole bunch of things not covered here in Canada (I believe all prescription drugs, maybe dental, I can’t remember exactly what) and for him to claim that will still leave $2 trillion a year less in expected health costs for the next 10 years (he said $20 trillion in overall savings over 10 years) sounds like fuzzy math to me.
One more comment, on the other side, attacking Joe Biden for the expansion of Obamacare leaving 10 million uncovered is also a cheap shot.
Here in Canada, our single payer does not exactly provide ‘universal coverage’ either. It’s complicated, because it depends on exactly what is being measured because, for instance, 10% of people in Ontario don’t have a primary care provider. However, many physicians are moving to a clinic model rather than having a roster of patients. So, I believe many people in Ontario still have access to a primary care provider, but don’t have a personal one. However, there are also many people in remote rural areas who do not have guaranteed access to any care provider.
Also, when it comes to specialists in Canada, in some cases the wait lists can be so long that people effectively have no access to specialists.
Of course, it’s always important to state platitudes like ‘every person counts’ but 10 million people in the U.S is about 3% of the population, and 97% coverage for at least a primary care provider is probably about as good a situation as there can be.
But here’s my issue:
(1) I already have Medicare, so Medicare for All gives me nothing different.
(2) But I also have income, so my tax bill will go up, possibly WAY up.
In other words, I will start to pay for something I now have for free.
And what is doubly annoying about that, is that it’s “free” now because I have already paid for it, with taxes paid over 50 years in the work force.
… unless there is a tax exemption for the working elderly. I don’t know whether there is such a thing. That is my question.
But if her plan is simply to take a few grand a year out of my paycheck, and there is no chance I can possibly get anything for it, she ain’t gettin’ my vote.
Scoopy,
#1 – It’s not free. Medicare Part A still costs $134 per quarter last time I checked.
#2 – You already pay a percentage of your income in the Medicare deduction
#3 – You will get expanded coverage.
wrong there are advantage plans like mine that gives you its 135.50 back so nothing is taken out and her plan does not account for anything extra except taking away our choice
You have 30 million citizens. You can compare Canada to New Hampshire. Certainly not the United States.
New Hampshire has 1.3M population.
Canada has a greater population than Texas. Texas could probably do a single payer model if it chose.
Size doesn’t matter anyways. There are more people to treat but there are also more people to give care.
It is a well-beaten horse but there is no way around paying for other peoples’ health care…we pay through higher insurance rates, inflated hospital costs, lost productivity, etc. Well unless you are going to literally lock bleeding people out of emergency rooms or euthanize people who can’t afford life saving treatments.
You’re paying for someone’s health care if you’re not using it, just the same as car insurance, homeowners insurance, or anything else. I’ve never had a car accident, homeowner incident, or major medical procedure ever done to me. If you’ve had any of the above, then you’re no different than the people you speak about. I’ve had none of the above, and I’m still in the Medicare for All camp.
Why? The choice isn’t to not pay or pay for someone’s else in terms of insurance. It’s to choose to use the money you pay in for people, instead of pharmaceutical and insurance companies to make billions in profit every single year. Go add up all the big pharmaceutical and insurance companies profit each year, and tell me we couldn’t use that for something better for this world. Universities and non-profits seem to do the major research, big pharma just wants to skew a study to put a patent on something they can market to doctors so patients pay thousands of month for some pills.
I’m sorry, but this world needs to get out of this “you’re getting something I’m not” mindset. Newsflash, you’re letting billionaires soak it all up because you’re fighting with anecdotal evidence while they clean up.
I’ve paid off $50,000 of student loan debt and if Bernie gets elected and eliminates it all on Day 1, you know what I would say? Good for him. Good for the people that can get out of this nightmare, because I’ve been through it and wouldn’t wish it on anyone.
It’s too bad very few in this country see it that way. ‘The land of the free’ should be changed to ‘Got mine. Fuck you.’
Well said!
Yer goddam right.
But you missed the point. It’s not about whether I use it. No matter how healthy or sick I am, if I (or any other working person) have Medicare, then “Medicare for all” gives me nothing extra, but I now have to pay additional taxes. In essence, it starts to charge me for the Medicare I have earned with a lifetime of labor. If any person now has Medicare, they will get nothing additional with Medicare for All, but will have to pay more taxes.
Same coverage, more taxes.
Is that right, or is there a tax exemption for the working elderly who already have Medicare?
Scoopy,
You keep saying you will get nothing extra and that is not true. Medicare will be expanded to include additional benefits like vision and dental care, as well as reducing prescription drug costs. According to Bernie’s plan, which Elizabeth has signed onto, there will be no co-pays and no deductibles.
I am on a medicare advantage plan i pay no prem or deductibles free vision and dental no co pays low or no drug price.What scoop is saying why should we pay more tax when ours is fine now.But what everybody is missing is this all talk.How in the world is going to get passed with Mitch McConnell and republican congress.A democrat for eight years and a republican president for at least 4 years and nothing has been passed.Not one candidate has answered how they would get it passed.All we hear is talk.
In addition to Jim’s comments members of unions that sacrificed wages for premium health care benefit will be screwed. Bring back the Democratic Party, down with Socialists.
No, they will no longer have to include healthcare in their bargaining, they can work for better pay and hours without goddam health insurance even coming up. This is a win for unions.
There’s no such thing as “Medicare for all”. Medicare is a program that you and others have paid into all their lives and are entitled to it. The true term would be “Medicaid for all”: a tax funded bureaucratic mess with 3 month waits, underqualified medical staff, and more restrictions on pharmaceuticals and procedures. The wealthy will simply go hire the best drs and private family physicians. The 10% will pool together and join co coerce private pay practices and the remaining 89% will travel 4 hours, wait 6 months, pay higher taxes, and receive less quality treatment for their families. All so someone who doesn’t have a job, doesn’t work, or is an illegal immigrant can have the same terrible care as you. As a senior who has paid into Medicare your entire life, and any other senior” should be outraged over the very concept of single payer. If the Gov’t wants to compete with a public, option then so be it.
The system in Canada is not perfect, but our single payer is nothing like that. Your characterization is idiotic and by most measures, the Canadian single payer system is better than the U.S system.
I personally also prefer the ‘public option’ competing against private health insurance for the U.S model, but let’s deal with some semblance of reality here.
I’m a health plan exec. But you can believe talking points from politicians who have no clue what’s in the ACA. There’s a reason Canadians come to the US when they need treatment for serious issues. Canada has 20 million people. NYC is bigger. It’s easy to allocate resources for small populations.
I’m Canadian and this is simply not true. Do some Canadians go to the US for treatment? Sure, when it’s a rare case and the expert is in, I don’t know, Idaho…or when there are trials being done there. My parents have both had serious issues (cancer and heart attacks) but they were taken care of quickly and expertly here.
If you are a health care executive, your firm should be worried about your ignorance. Yes, there are a small number of Canadians who come to the U.S for treatment every year. There are a number of rare health conditions where the expertise is in the United States.
There are also a fair number of Canadians who go to the United States because the wait times for some elective surgeries and to see specialists can be a problem. Canada does not allow any basic private health insurance and going to the United States is the Canadian form of basic private insurance in these areas. I mentioned this specifically elsewhere and I also mentioned the Canadian system is far from perfect in this post.
I’m hardly going on U.S politician talking points since I’m Canadian.
In regards to the errors in your post:
1.The ‘small population’ scalability argument is nonsense. It’s also argued by some against in similar type situations ‘you don’t have a big enough population to amortize the fixed costs.’
States and counties presently deliver public health care in the U.S (other than in New York City, which is really more of a county), and that would almost certainly continue under a ‘medicare for all’ plan. The only thing would be the federal government would allocate funding to the states to cover the federal share of health care costs. This is exactly what occurs in Canada
2.Canada has a population of around 38 million, not 20 million.
3.Even if it was 20 million, that would still be more than twice the population of New York City.
I spend a lot of time in Canada and almost invariably ask low-wage service employees, like waitresses and store clerks, about health care. I have yet to hear any serious negative. My impression is that Canadians are very happy with, and grateful for, what they have.
Adam outlined elsewhere in this post that the Canadian system is not perfect, and acknowledged that some Canadians do go to the USA for certain specialized procedures, but those are exceptional circumstances, and generally not worth complaining about. The Canadian system seems to have a very high satisfaction level.
Just as important, or maybe even more important. The average amount spent on health care per person in Canada is HALF of the amount in the states. A small amount of that is because Canadians are healthier and have less obesity, and a small amount is that they require less treatment from violent injuries, but the most important reason is simply that the Canadians have the cost of treatment and medication under pretty good control, while those factors run completely rampant in the USA.
Yeah,you’re assuming worst case based on nothing.